Politically, I agree with you, but your comment is akin to when republicans blast global warming when a snow storm blows in. Pointing to a single data point as a summary of something super complex is always silly.
It's comments like this that keep me coming back to Hacker News. I sometimes find myself in political discussions with people and feel that they aren't playing fair for whatever reason (fair in the sense of good natured truth-seeking). Your counter-example is the perfect, non-snarky retort.
Verizon has seen zero revenue growth since something like 2012 or 2013. 7% employee cut, against a 12%-14% inflation erosion of their business. Everything they've done over that time has been to just stand still while T-Mobile eats their market out from under them.
In a more practical consideration, they're very likely going to need less people going forward because they're going to keep losing market share to a more nimble competitor. They'd be the last to admit that of course.
Of course not, but invoking cold weather as a way of casting doubt on global warming is not a popular rhetorical tactic except among American conservatives (republicans).
Correlation does not imply causation. Can you provide evidence tax cuts stoked existing economic momentum? Or is the economy on fire despite these tax cuts?
Stock buybacks [1] done with these tax cuts, enriching shareholders, does little to stoke economic demand or benefit the middle class [2]. More likely, cheap, loose credit is what has allowed the music to carry on.
Why aren't you asking this of all the comments in this parent? People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts. Or claiming that jobs weren't created. Or that somehow the tax cuts were an economic negative. None of those things can be attributed to causation.
People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts
At no point was that ever insinuated. The simple idea is that the tax cuts were sold as a way to give companies financial resources to boost salaries and hire new people. Well they got their tax cuts, why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do?
Maybe it's because the tax cuts were never going to boost salaries and increase hiring. You have to be pretty deluded to come to the conclusion my comment was blaming the layoffs on the tax cuts.
> Why aren't you asking this of all the comments in this parent?
I don't need to ask everyone in the thread, polluting the thread. I'm asking why you have made several statements in this thread insinuating the corporate tax cut has benefited the economy, with no evidence. My comment includes citations. Bring data, not feelings or unsubstantiated opinions.
I was simply providing numbers as a counterbalance to those that were weirdly lamenting that the tax cuts are responsible for job cuts, similarly without evidence.
Tax cuts were sold to the American people as something that would bolster jobs. Clearly, that has not been the case (GM = 15k job cuts, Ford = upwards of 25k job cuts, Verizon = 10k job cuts).
It is not a weird lament; it is calling out the lies of trickle down economics.
"Stock buybacks done with these tax cuts, enriching shareholders, does little to stoke economic demand."
Stock buybacks don't 'enrich' anyone. Money that is owned by investors goes from 'inside the company' to 'outside' and it
's superficially a net neutral transaction.
What those buy backs do do however is free up capital to be used in more intelligent ways than can be used by the single entity, in this case Verizon, who may not have any great ways to invest it.
Tax cuts probably have not directly affected companies just yet, but the signalling value of it, and that Trump is believed to be a 'pro business' guy (minus trade wars) is at least partly buyoing the economy by providing a dose of faith.
Though stocks are staggering a little because there's fear of no more upside ... there's no real fear yet as no reason for anything to burst. Though a major China trade war - or - a serious setback in China could make a serious correction.
I think the trade war with China was inevitable. Not to say the U.S. doesn't or hasn't used state resources to bolster business, China does it to an extent that no other country has or could. Given the U.S. labor market and cost of said labor by comparison, it's about the only way to even attempt preserving that pool.
Yes it will make things more expensive, it will probably also cycle a faster upswing in demands for higher pay (also well overdue). But things will balance out in the end. My larger hope is to see some of the more overt corporatism recede quite a bit. Particularly IP terms and reform.
The US has been in a 'trade war' with China since the 1980s.
But it's been a 'frog in warming to boiling water' type scenario.
By that I mean - the protectionism, corruption, IP theft etc. has been going on forever - it's just that we didn't care.
Actually - we didn't mind - because a backwards mess of a poor economy might want to do 'whatever it takes' to move forward.
Everyone (well most) was very happy to see China come out of the doldrums. It's better for everyone, generally.
But now that they are reaching for advanced economy status ... the 'issues' become ever more apparent.
I don't like Trump one bit, I find him kind of nauseating in his demeanor - and - I'm not even sure his manner of approach to the 'war' is right.
BUT - 100% of politicians are otherwise incapable of standing up to China. Ironically, it just mike take a loose-cannon douche-bag to do it.
'The West' speaks with 1000 voices: CEOs, NGO leaders, politicians, bureaucrats, federal/state, different countries within federal entities (i.e. EU), heads of Universities, research establishments.
China speaks with 'one voice' and they have a plan, which can actually be carried out.
So if anyone tries to stand up to them, China can scare that 'little individual' with all sorts of things, and by 'little individual' I even mean heads of state.
But ironically, in totality, Western powers do have the upper hand, both because of the direction of trade, but also because of the size of economies, sophistication, all sorts of other reasons.
Example: Trudeau in Canada will mollify Chinese and would be afraid to do anything because China could threaten to not buy Canadian commodities. But here's the thing: they are commodities! So if China stops buying hardwood from B.C. and starts buying it from elsewhere, then as prices receded in Canada and prices increase 'elsewhere' - other buyers come to B.C. for hardwood.
China buying a commodity is like them scooping water out of a river -> it doesn't matter who buys what, the aggregate demand is the same.
But the interim calamity and fear from China walking away will push Canadian CEO's to make Trudeau cede whatever to China.
As an example.
NPR just had an interview with the Robert Lighthizer [1] who talks about the fact China has been saying they'll 'do things' on IP for over 20 years but they've done nothing really. These talks are the first time basically ever that the US is speaking with credibility in terms of actual response/retaliation.
I suggest the Chinese are just waiting for Trump to be out of office, or to give him something political to show for it, and then going back to normal. I would be ideal if the US political org. got together with the EU, Japan, S. Korea, India and Australia ... and made a coordinated, long term effort on these issues. It would actually be better for everyone - even the Chinese, in the long term.
There is a case to be made that things were going well enough based on the previous economic momentum from pent up demand. That pent up demand was based on all the cost cutting based on economic catastrophe from 2008.
Even if you believe the tax cuts have had some positive effect on the economy, every legitimate economics professional and reality based think tank said that in order for the tax cuts to pay for themselves growth has to be 6%. Last time I looked it was 4.5%. These tax cuts won't pay for themselves. And the austerity we're in store for when the economy takes a down turn, which is inevitable, will be quite painful.
Hey remember when conservatives used to advocate for fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget? That's only for when Democrats are in charge. It's all an excuse to throw poor people under the bus.
Sounds like empty political rhetoric and speculation. FTA: Verizon is "cutting costs as it ramps up investment in its next generation 5G network" Maybe that will mean future jobs in other areas. Maybe the people they're buying equipment from/contracting to will add more jobs. The bottom line is how do you really know?
Maybe they’ve discovered a unicorn. Maybe they have a fusion powered internet. How do you really know? Bottom line is we know labor is getting screwed. The rest is marketing.
Not more than pre-tax cut trend. The critique was always that companies aren't hurting for cash so a tax cut is pointless and will only balloon the deficit. That's exactly what has happened. We gained nothing but a shorter debt bomb fuse.
Outside of the normal trend, yeah. There isn't much growth difference than pre-tax treatment.
The national deficit is the highest it's been since the recession though, and growing faster than before.
At least during the recession when our tax money was given to corporations, there were strings attached. Now it's all stock buybacks to fight the shrinking market, brought on by the stupid trade war.
Which is being achieved if you look at the overall numbers. One company doesn't represent total job growth. If GM fails and Tesla takes its place will you blame that on Trump too?
Announcing huge layoffs is not a positive market indicator. Similar to inverted yields, massive market drops or VIX growth, it is indicative of a wind shift.
The article's headline and its content paint different pictures, with the title really just being clickbait. They're not laying off individuals but paying them to leave including upwards of a year of salary, a bonus, and maintaining benefits. And it was voluntary -- not 'pink slipping.'
I don't really think you can attribute this to the tax breaks, but if you can - then this would be an immense positive. Employee turnover is already very high pretty much everywhere now a days. Getting paid a year of salary, and more, to agree to leave? That's something I think the vast majority of workers would be absolutely thrilled to be offered. It's a potentially life changing offer giving somebody a chance to carry out any entrepreneurial fantasy they have, to get a fat head start on the joy of compound interest, or simply spending a year with bikinis, booze, and beaches if that's your thing.
If they don’t get enough employees to voluntarily leave, you can be sure that there will be forced layoffs (with probably worse terms).
Imagine you’re a 50 year old employee with a kid in college. Would you be thrilled to accept a year of salary with limited job prospects? What jobs do you think will be the first to be cut?
Don’t try to sugar coat it - when there are lay-offs (voluntarily or not), it’s rarely a positive for the majority of affected employees. And this in no way should be considered a positive effect of the corporate tax cuts.
Here's a more reasonable question. If you ask 10,000 random workers from various tech companies if they'd be willing to leave in exchange for more than a year of salary, + benefits, + a bonus. What percent would say yes? We can only imagine, but it's going to be huge.
If you don't want to leave, don't apply. And on that note - yeah people did have to apply, and some were rejected.
You’re presuming that those workers have good prospects for finding a new job as good as the one they currently have. This is harder when you are older.
Cutting taxes and increasing government spending trivially increases employment and wages. These people voluntarily accepted a buyout to get a better paying job elsewhere.
How does lowering costs to businesses result in layoffs? The tax cut has nothing to do with these layoffs. Were there not layoffs during the Obama administration?
If a company just announced they are hiring a bunch of people, does the tax credit get credit for that? Currently, the US has very low unemployment. Also, in December 2017, wage growth was at 2.9%, while now it has increased to 3.7%. So almost a full percentage point in less than a year. Is that because of the tax cut? It would be very difficult to say for sure, but one thing is clear from the data, the tax cut didn’t reduce wage growth.
They understand good god damn well they don't work. This is exactly the plan. Sell people on the idea it'll help them, then these companies take the money and run.
What amazes me is some working people will continue to vote this way even though it keeps failing. I guarantee there will be more tax cuts sold in the very near future, and the same people will buy into it. Some people never learn.
It's hard to learn when your sole source of news is Fox News.
It's not even that Fox News is an outlier, the fault is ad supported news media. What do you think will happen when a politician comes along that threatens the million dollar ad accounts from finance and health industries through policies that reduce those institutions influence? Chomsky was right (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent).
I would bet if you actually look another layer deep you'd find out it has nothing to do with "the media," ad-supported or not. I think you'd find a lot of people have little use for (and little interest in) the truth, and therefore voluntarily seek out a fun us-vs-them worldview with a group to hate (on both sides).
Eventually you end up with an anemic government that overspends on things that don't work and ignores all the social programs that the government put in place to prevent history from repeating.
I don't see the left looking to educate the public against Fox News in general. As long as Fox News controls the message, the uninformed will continue to vote against their best interests. If someone ran a FB campaign against Fox News, I'll donate.